Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 431	control, N = 211	treatment, N = 221	p-value2
age	43	50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72)	50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72)	51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72)	0.747
gender	43				0.449
f		29 (67%)	13 (62%)	16 (73%)
m		14 (33%)	8 (38%)	6 (27%)
occupation	43				0.978
full_time		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
homemaker		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
other		2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (9.1%)
part_time		7 (16%)	4 (19%)	3 (14%)
retired		13 (30%)	6 (29%)	7 (32%)
self_employ		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
t_and_e		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
unemploy		10 (23%)	5 (24%)	5 (23%)
marital	43				0.892
divore		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
married		8 (19%)	3 (14%)	5 (23%)
none		24 (56%)	12 (57%)	12 (55%)
seperation		3 (7.0%)	2 (9.5%)	1 (4.5%)
widow		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
edu	43				0.399
bachelor		13 (30%)	5 (24%)	8 (36%)
diploma		7 (16%)	5 (24%)	2 (9.1%)
hd_ad		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
postgraduate		4 (9.3%)	2 (9.5%)	2 (9.1%)
primary		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
secondary_1_3		2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (9.1%)
secondary_4_5		10 (23%)	7 (33%)	3 (14%)
secondary_6_7		1 (2.3%)	0 (0%)	1 (4.5%)
fam_income	43				0.881
10001_12000		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
12001_14000		1 (2.3%)	1 (4.8%)	0 (0%)
14001_16000		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
16001_18000		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
18001_20000		1 (2.3%)	1 (4.8%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		9 (21%)	6 (29%)	3 (14%)
2001_4000		5 (12%)	2 (9.5%)	3 (14%)
4001_6000		6 (14%)	3 (14%)	3 (14%)
6001_8000		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
8001_10000		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
below_2000		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
medication	43	37 (86%)	17 (81%)	20 (91%)	0.412
onset_duration	43	16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56)	17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56)	15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35)	0.519
onset_age	43	34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62)	32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55)	36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62)	0.334
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 431	control, N = 211	treatment, N = 221	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	43	3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)	3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5)	3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	0.761
recovery_stage_b	43	18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23)	18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23)	18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23)	0.938
ras_confidence	43	30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)	30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40)	31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39)	0.545
ras_willingness	43	12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)	12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)	12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15)	0.959
ras_goal	43	17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24)	17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23)	17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24)	0.833
ras_reliance	43	13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)	13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18)	13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20)	0.680
ras_domination	43	10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15)	9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14)	0.036
symptom	43	29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56)	28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45)	30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56)	0.614
slof_work	43	22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30)	23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30)	22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)	0.571
slof_relationship	43	26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)	26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35)	25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35)	0.496
satisfaction	43	21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30)	19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29)	22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30)	0.204
mhc_emotional	43	11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18)	11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17)	12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18)	0.435
mhc_social	43	14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)	15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25)	14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23)	0.733
mhc_psychological	43	22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36)	21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33)	22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)	0.473
resilisnce	43	16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25)	16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24)	17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25)	0.897
social_provision	43	13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20)	13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20)	13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19)	0.638
els_value_living	43	17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23)	16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)	17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23)	0.558
els_life_fulfill	43	13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)	12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17)	13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18)	0.096
els	43	30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40)	29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36)	31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40)	0.201
social_connect	43	26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48)	27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45)	26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48)	0.897
shs_agency	43	14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)	13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20)	14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20)	0.537
shs_pathway	43	16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)	16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21)	17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22)	0.390
shs	43	30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42)	29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41)	31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42)	0.434
esteem	43	12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)	12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14)	12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15)	0.364
mlq_search	43	15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)	15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21)	15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20)	0.972
mlq_presence	43	13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21)	14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19)	13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21)	0.464
mlq	43	28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41)	29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40)	28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41)	0.676
empower	43	19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28)	20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)	19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28)	0.837
ismi_resistance	43	14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19)	14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20)	0.960
ismi_discrimation	43	11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)	12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17)	10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)	0.100
sss_affective	43	9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)	9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15)	9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18)	0.494
sss_behavior	43	9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)	10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)	8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18)	0.318
sss_cognitive	43	7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)	7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15)	8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18)	0.647
sss	43	26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54)	27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44)	25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54)	0.642
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.38	0.261	2.87, 3.89
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.119	0.364	-0.595, 0.833	0.745
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.752	0.514	-0.256, 1.76	0.158
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.265	0.824	-1.88, 1.35	0.750
	Pseudo R square	0.048
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.4	0.588	17.3, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.065	0.822	-1.68, 1.55	0.937
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.153	0.586	-1.30, 0.995	0.800
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.440	0.967	-1.45, 2.33	0.659
	Pseudo R square	0.001
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	30.2	1.032	28.2, 32.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.898	1.443	-1.93, 3.73	0.537
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.617	0.732	-0.817, 2.05	0.419
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.151	1.211	-2.22, 2.52	0.903
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.3	0.446	11.4, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.623	-1.19, 1.25	0.959
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.406	0.558	-1.50, 0.687	0.483
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.537	0.918	-1.26, 2.34	0.571
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.6	0.684	16.2, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.201	0.956	-1.67, 2.08	0.834
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.117	0.660	-1.18, 1.41	0.862
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.17	1.090	-3.30, 0.971	0.310
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.2	0.679	11.9, 14.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.398	0.949	-1.46, 2.26	0.677
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.136	0.428	-0.703, 0.975	0.757
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.541	0.709	-0.848, 1.93	0.464
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ras_domination	(Intercept)	11.0	0.496	9.98, 11.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.54	0.693	-2.90, -0.184	0.031
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.11	0.921	-2.91, 0.700	0.244
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	2.67	1.489	-0.247, 5.59	0.086
	Pseudo R square	0.095
symptom	(Intercept)	28.9	2.243	24.5, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.60	3.136	-4.55, 7.74	0.613
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.21	1.901	-4.94, 2.51	0.539
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.00	3.143	-5.16, 7.16	0.757
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_work	(Intercept)	23.4	1.091	21.3, 25.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.883	1.525	-3.87, 2.11	0.566
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.84	0.601	-3.02, -0.660	0.014
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.30	0.996	-0.647, 3.26	0.222
	Pseudo R square	0.016
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	27.0	1.258	24.5, 29.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.23	1.759	-4.67, 2.22	0.490
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.46	1.113	-3.64, 0.720	0.220
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	2.73	1.839	-0.878, 6.33	0.170
	Pseudo R square	0.013
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.9	1.502	16.9, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.69	2.100	-1.43, 6.80	0.208
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.41	1.017	0.418, 4.41	0.042
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.47	1.684	-4.77, 1.83	0.405
	Pseudo R square	0.039
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.1	0.747	9.68, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.857	1.045	-1.19, 2.91	0.417
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.15	1.196	-1.20, 3.49	0.367
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.464	1.954	-4.29, 3.36	0.818
	Pseudo R square	0.023
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.2	1.141	13.0, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.509	1.595	-3.63, 2.62	0.751
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.41	1.670	-0.864, 5.68	0.167
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.29	2.736	-8.66, 2.07	0.244
	Pseudo R square	0.036
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	1.341	18.9, 24.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.38	1.875	-2.29, 5.06	0.465
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.07	2.125	-2.09, 6.24	0.347
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.92	3.471	-8.72, 4.88	0.589
	Pseudo R square	0.016
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.9	1.033	14.8, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.188	1.445	-2.64, 3.02	0.897
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.387	0.564	-0.719, 1.49	0.510
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.45	0.934	-4.28, -0.618	0.027
	Pseudo R square	0.013
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.4	0.728	12.0, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.481	1.018	-1.51, 2.48	0.639
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.327	0.664	-1.63, 0.974	0.633
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.10	1.097	-1.05, 3.25	0.342
	Pseudo R square	0.015
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.9	0.663	15.6, 18.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	0.927	-1.27, 2.37	0.555
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.34	0.668	0.027, 2.65	0.076
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.60	1.103	-3.76, 0.567	0.181
	Pseudo R square	0.020
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.2	0.710	10.8, 13.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.72	0.993	-0.228, 3.66	0.091
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.38	0.665	0.075, 2.68	0.068
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.56	1.098	-3.71, 0.596	0.190
	Pseudo R square	0.058
els	(Intercept)	29.0	1.239	26.6, 31.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.27	1.732	-1.12, 5.67	0.197
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.71	1.161	0.433, 4.98	0.044
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.18	1.917	-6.94, 0.580	0.130
	Pseudo R square	0.040
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.0	2.241	22.7, 31.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.411	3.133	-6.55, 5.73	0.896
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.74	1.575	-1.35, 4.83	0.297
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	2.69	2.606	-2.41, 7.80	0.327
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	1.065	11.6, 15.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.922	1.489	-2.00, 3.84	0.539
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.30	0.877	-0.417, 3.02	0.171
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.80	1.451	-4.65, 1.04	0.244
	Pseudo R square	0.011
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.2	0.802	14.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.991	1.121	-1.21, 3.19	0.381
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.756	0.702	-0.620, 2.13	0.310
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.879	1.160	-3.15, 1.39	0.468
	Pseudo R square	0.016
shs	(Intercept)	29.9	1.732	26.5, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.91	2.421	-2.83, 6.66	0.434
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.92	1.238	-0.508, 4.34	0.156
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.74	2.048	-6.75, 1.28	0.214
	Pseudo R square	0.013
esteem	(Intercept)	12.7	0.266	12.1, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.348	0.372	-1.08, 0.381	0.354
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.894	0.493	-0.073, 1.86	0.096
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.889	0.797	-2.45, 0.673	0.284
	Pseudo R square	0.098
mlq_search	(Intercept)	15.2	0.755	13.7, 16.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.037	1.056	-2.03, 2.11	0.972
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.760	1.362	-1.91, 3.43	0.586
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.00	2.208	-6.33, 2.33	0.378
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	14.1	0.892	12.4, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.916	1.247	-3.36, 1.53	0.467
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.665	0.582	-0.476, 1.81	0.282
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.57	0.964	-4.46, -0.683	0.025
	Pseudo R square	0.043
mlq	(Intercept)	29.3	1.532	26.3, 32.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.879	2.142	-5.08, 3.32	0.684
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.32	1.748	-2.11, 4.74	0.469
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-5.10	2.881	-10.7, 0.546	0.106
	Pseudo R square	0.037
empower	(Intercept)	20.1	0.952	18.2, 22.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.277	1.331	-2.89, 2.33	0.836
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.408	0.584	-0.737, 1.55	0.503
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.28	0.967	-3.18, 0.611	0.217
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	15.0	0.582	13.8, 16.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.043	0.813	-1.64, 1.55	0.958
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.129	0.858	-1.81, 1.55	0.884
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.473	1.406	-2.28, 3.23	0.744
	Pseudo R square	0.001
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.0	0.673	10.7, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.59	0.941	-3.43, 0.253	0.098
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.857	0.754	-2.34, 0.622	0.280
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.674	1.244	-1.76, 3.11	0.598
	Pseudo R square	0.057
sss_affective	(Intercept)	9.95	0.926	8.14, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.907	1.294	-3.44, 1.63	0.487
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.329	0.648	-1.60, 0.942	0.624
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.345	1.072	-2.45, 1.76	0.755
	Pseudo R square	0.014
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.953	8.32, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.37	1.332	-3.98, 1.24	0.309
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.32	0.960	-3.20, 0.560	0.201
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.04	1.585	-2.06, 4.15	0.526
	Pseudo R square	0.024
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	7.48	0.897	5.72, 9.23
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.569	1.254	-1.89, 3.03	0.652
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.24	0.829	-0.390, 2.86	0.169
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.23	1.370	-4.92, 0.455	0.136
	Pseudo R square	0.013
sss	(Intercept)	27.6	2.601	22.5, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.71	3.637	-8.84, 5.42	0.641
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.535	1.778	-4.02, 2.95	0.770
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.727	2.943	-6.49, 5.04	0.810
	Pseudo R square	0.006
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.10) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.87, 3.89], t(48) = 12.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.83], t(48) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.76], t(48) = 1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.35], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(48) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.55], t(48) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.99], t(48) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.33], t(48) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.91])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.21, 32.26], t(48) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.73], t(48) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.05], t(48) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.52], t(48) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.53])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.41, 13.16], t(48) = 27.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.25], t(48) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.69], t(48) = -0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.34], t(48) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.16])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.23, 18.91], t(48) = 25.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.67, 2.08], t(48) = 0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.41], t(48) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.30, 0.97], t(48) = -1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.32])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.91, 14.57], t(48) = 19.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.26], t(48) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.98], t(48) = 0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.93], t(48) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.61])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.98, 11.92], t(48) = 22.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.90, -0.18], t(48) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.24, -0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.70], t(48) = -1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-0.25, 5.59], t(48) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 2.38])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.46, 33.25], t(48) = 12.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.55, 7.74], t(48) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.79])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-4.94, 2.51], t(48) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-5.16, 7.16], t(48) = 0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.73])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.29, 25.57], t(48) = 21.48, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.87, 2.11], t(48) = -0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.84, 95% CI [-3.02, -0.66], t(48) = -3.06, p = 0.002; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.26], t(48) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.70])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.49, 29.42], t(48) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.67, 2.22], t(48) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.40])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.46, 95% CI [-3.64, 0.72], t(48) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.73, 95% CI [-0.88, 6.33], t(48) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.13])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.91, 22.80], t(48) = 13.22, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.43, 6.80], t(48) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.01])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [0.42, 4.41], t(48) = 2.37, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.06, 0.65])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.83], t(48) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.27])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.68, 12.61], t(48) = 14.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.91], t(48) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.86])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.49], t(48) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-4.29, 3.36], t(48) = -0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.99])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.95, 17.43], t(48) = 13.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.62], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-0.86, 5.68], t(48) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.29, 95% CI [-8.66, 2.07], t(48) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.39])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.94, 24.20], t(48) = 16.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.29, 5.06], t(48) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [-2.09, 6.24], t(48) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-8.72, 4.88], t(48) = -0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.81])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.88], t(48) = 16.31, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.02], t(48) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.49], t(48) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.45, 95% CI [-4.28, -0.62], t(48) = -2.62, p = 0.009; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.14])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [12.00, 14.86], t(48) = 18.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.48], t(48) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.97], t(48) = -0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.05, 3.25], t(48) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.99])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.56, 18.16], t(48) = 25.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.37], t(48) = 0.60, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.82])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [0.03, 2.65], t(48) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [9.34e-03, 0.91])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.76, 0.57], t(48) = -1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.20])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(48) = 17.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(48) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [0.07, 2.68], t(48) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [0.02, 0.83])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.60], t(48) = -1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.18])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.62, 31.48], t(48) = 23.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 5.67], t(48) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.02])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.71, 95% CI [0.43, 4.98], t(48) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.08, 0.89])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.18, 95% CI [-6.94, 0.58], t(48) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.10])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.65, 31.44], t(48) = 12.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.55, 5.73], t(48) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-1.35, 4.83], t(48) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-2.41, 7.80], t(48) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.80])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.63, 15.80], t(48) = 12.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.84], t(48) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.82])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.02], t(48) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-4.65, 1.04], t(48) = -1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.22])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.76], t(48) = 20.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(48) = 0.88, p = 0.376; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.91])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.13], t(48) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.39], t(48) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.40])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.51, 33.30], t(48) = 17.27, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.83, 6.66], t(48) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.88])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.92, 95% CI [-0.51, 4.34], t(48) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.57])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-6.75, 1.28], t(48) = -1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.17])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.15, 13.19], t(48) = 47.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.38], t(48) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.86], t(48) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.49])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.67], t(48) = -1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.54])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.71, 16.67], t(48) = 20.12, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.11], t(48) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.43], t(48) = 0.56, p = 0.577; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.00, 95% CI [-6.33, 2.33], t(48) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.69])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(48) = 15.85, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.53], t(48) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.81], t(48) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.57, 95% CI [-4.46, -0.68], t(48) = -2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.17])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.33, 32.34], t(48) = 19.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.08, 3.32], t(48) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-2.11, 4.74], t(48) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.10, 95% CI [-10.75, 0.55], t(48) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.08])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(48) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.33], t(48) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.55], t(48) = 0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.61], t(48) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.15])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.09], t(48) = 25.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.55], t(48) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.55], t(48) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.60])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.28, 3.23], t(48) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.25])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.68, 13.32], t(48) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.43, 0.25], t(48) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.34, 0.62], t(48) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.11], t(48) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.98])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.14, 11.77], t(48) = 10.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.44, 1.63], t(48) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.94], t(48) = -0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.76], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.41])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(48) = 10.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.98, 1.24], t(48) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.29])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.20, 0.56], t(48) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-2.06, 4.15], t(48) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.96])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.72, 9.23], t(48) = 8.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.03], t(48) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.86], t(48) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.71])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.23, 95% CI [-4.92, 0.45], t(48) = -1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.11])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.72], t(48) = 10.62, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.84, 5.42], t(48) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.95], t(48) = -0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-6.49, 5.04], t(48) = -0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	177.087	183.054	-85.544	171.087
recovery_stage_a	random	6	180.239	192.173	-84.120	168.239	2.848	3	0.416
recovery_stage_b	null	3	249.782	255.749	-121.891	243.782
recovery_stage_b	random	6	255.531	267.465	-121.766	243.531	0.251	3	0.969
ras_confidence	null	3	304.865	310.832	-149.433	298.865
ras_confidence	random	6	309.028	320.962	-148.514	297.028	1.837	3	0.607
ras_willingness	null	3	225.074	231.041	-109.537	219.074
ras_willingness	random	6	230.369	242.303	-109.185	218.369	0.705	3	0.872
ras_goal	null	3	266.852	272.819	-130.426	260.852
ras_goal	random	6	271.192	283.126	-129.596	259.192	1.660	3	0.646
ras_reliance	null	3	257.137	263.104	-125.569	251.137
ras_reliance	random	6	261.219	273.153	-124.610	249.219	1.918	3	0.590
ras_domination	null	3	249.320	255.287	-121.660	243.320
ras_domination	random	6	249.192	261.126	-118.596	237.192	6.128	3	0.106
symptom	null	3	391.475	397.442	-192.738	385.475
symptom	random	6	396.693	408.627	-192.347	384.693	0.782	3	0.854
slof_work	null	3	310.772	316.739	-152.386	304.772
slof_work	random	6	309.491	321.425	-148.746	297.491	7.281	3	0.063
slof_relationship	null	3	332.040	338.007	-163.020	326.040
slof_relationship	random	6	335.167	347.100	-161.583	323.167	2.873	3	0.412
satisfaction	null	3	349.884	355.851	-171.942	343.884
satisfaction	random	6	348.518	360.452	-168.259	336.518	7.366	3	0.061
mhc_emotional	null	3	286.616	292.583	-140.308	280.616
mhc_emotional	random	6	291.028	302.961	-139.514	279.028	1.589	3	0.662
mhc_social	null	3	331.964	337.931	-162.982	325.964
mhc_social	random	6	335.065	346.999	-161.533	323.065	2.899	3	0.408
mhc_psychological	null	3	349.372	355.339	-171.686	343.372
mhc_psychological	random	6	354.032	365.965	-171.016	342.032	1.341	3	0.720
resilisnce	null	3	304.076	310.043	-149.038	298.076
resilisnce	random	6	303.451	315.385	-145.726	291.451	6.625	3	0.085
social_provision	null	3	272.200	278.167	-133.100	266.200
social_provision	random	6	276.709	288.643	-132.355	264.709	1.491	3	0.684
els_value_living	null	3	267.018	272.985	-130.509	261.018
els_value_living	random	6	268.777	280.711	-128.389	256.777	4.241	3	0.237
els_life_fulfill	null	3	275.329	281.296	-134.664	269.329
els_life_fulfill	random	6	274.610	286.544	-131.305	262.610	6.719	3	0.081
els	null	3	335.279	341.246	-164.639	329.279
els	random	6	334.716	346.650	-161.358	322.716	6.563	3	0.087
social_connect	null	3	391.195	397.162	-192.598	385.195
social_connect	random	6	392.548	404.482	-190.274	380.548	4.647	3	0.200
shs_agency	null	3	312.423	318.390	-153.212	306.423
shs_agency	random	6	315.608	327.542	-151.804	303.608	2.815	3	0.421
shs_pathway	null	3	282.170	288.137	-138.085	276.170
shs_pathway	random	6	286.245	298.179	-137.123	274.245	1.924	3	0.588
shs	null	3	362.354	368.321	-178.177	356.354
shs	random	6	365.070	377.004	-176.535	353.070	3.284	3	0.350
esteem	null	3	181.831	187.797	-87.915	175.831
esteem	random	6	181.889	193.823	-84.945	169.889	5.941	3	0.114
mlq_search	null	3	289.152	295.118	-141.576	283.152
mlq_search	random	6	294.174	306.108	-141.087	282.174	0.977	3	0.807
mlq_presence	null	3	293.054	299.021	-143.527	287.054
mlq_presence	random	6	291.459	303.393	-139.730	279.459	7.594	3	0.055
mlq	null	3	359.687	365.654	-176.844	353.687
mlq	random	6	361.829	373.763	-174.915	349.829	3.858	3	0.277
empower	null	3	293.249	299.216	-143.624	287.249
empower	random	6	297.158	309.092	-142.579	285.158	2.091	3	0.554
ismi_resistance	null	3	256.542	262.509	-125.271	250.542
ismi_resistance	random	6	262.447	274.381	-125.224	250.447	0.095	3	0.992
ismi_discrimation	null	3	270.591	276.558	-132.295	264.591
ismi_discrimation	random	6	272.608	284.542	-130.304	260.608	3.982	3	0.263
sss_affective	null	3	292.447	298.414	-143.223	286.447
sss_affective	random	6	296.978	308.912	-142.489	284.978	1.468	3	0.690
sss_behavior	null	3	304.849	310.816	-149.424	298.849
sss_behavior	random	6	307.905	319.839	-147.952	295.905	2.944	3	0.400
sss_cognitive	null	3	296.848	302.815	-145.424	290.848
sss_cognitive	random	6	299.537	311.471	-143.768	287.537	3.311	3	0.346
sss	null	3	402.670	408.637	-198.335	396.670
sss	random	6	408.039	419.973	-198.020	396.039	0.631	3	0.889

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	21	3.38 ± 1.19		22	3.50 ± 1.19		0.745	-0.102
recovery_stage_a	2nd	7	4.13 ± 1.28	-0.646	4	3.99 ± 1.30	-0.419	0.858	0.125
recovery_stage_b	1st	21	18.43 ± 2.69		22	18.36 ± 2.69		0.937	0.058
recovery_stage_b	2nd	7	18.28 ± 2.01	0.135	4	18.65 ± 1.82	-0.254	0.754	-0.332
ras_confidence	1st	21	30.24 ± 4.73		22	31.14 ± 4.73		0.537	-0.647
ras_confidence	2nd	7	30.86 ± 3.16	-0.444	4	31.90 ± 2.68	-0.553	0.562	-0.755
ras_willingness	1st	21	12.29 ± 2.04		22	12.32 ± 2.04		0.959	-0.030
ras_willingness	2nd	7	11.88 ± 1.70	0.370	4	12.45 ± 1.61	-0.119	0.584	-0.519
ras_goal	1st	21	17.57 ± 3.13		22	17.77 ± 3.13		0.834	-0.158
ras_goal	2nd	7	17.69 ± 2.31	-0.092	4	16.72 ± 2.08	0.825	0.483	0.759
ras_reliance	1st	21	13.24 ± 3.11		22	13.64 ± 3.11		0.677	-0.492
ras_reliance	2nd	7	13.37 ± 2.02	-0.168	4	14.31 ± 1.68	-0.836	0.412	-1.159
ras_domination	1st	21	10.95 ± 2.27		22	9.41 ± 2.27		0.031	0.771
ras_domination	2nd	7	9.85 ± 2.38	0.552	4	10.97 ± 2.40	-0.782	0.456	-0.564
symptom	1st	21	28.86 ± 10.28		22	30.45 ± 10.28		0.613	-0.440
symptom	2nd	7	27.64 ± 7.23	0.334	4	30.24 ± 6.34	0.059	0.538	-0.715
slof_work	1st	21	23.43 ± 5.00		22	22.55 ± 5.00		0.566	0.779
slof_work	2nd	7	21.59 ± 3.17	1.621	4	22.01 ± 2.57	0.470	0.811	-0.372
slof_relationship	1st	21	26.95 ± 5.77		22	25.73 ± 5.77		0.490	0.575
slof_relationship	2nd	7	25.49 ± 4.12	0.685	4	26.99 ± 3.64	-0.594	0.535	-0.704
satisfaction	1st	21	19.86 ± 6.88		22	22.55 ± 6.88		0.207	-1.394
satisfaction	2nd	7	22.27 ± 4.55	-1.251	4	23.49 ± 3.82	-0.489	0.637	-0.632
mhc_emotional	1st	21	11.14 ± 3.43		22	12.00 ± 3.43		0.416	-0.349
mhc_emotional	2nd	7	12.29 ± 3.28	-0.467	4	12.68 ± 3.25	-0.278	0.849	-0.160
mhc_social	1st	21	15.19 ± 5.23		22	14.68 ± 5.23		0.751	0.151
mhc_social	2nd	7	17.60 ± 4.74	-0.716	4	13.80 ± 4.63	0.263	0.204	1.130
mhc_psychological	1st	21	21.57 ± 6.15		22	22.95 ± 6.15		0.464	-0.318
mhc_psychological	2nd	7	23.65 ± 5.85	-0.476	4	23.11 ± 5.79	-0.035	0.884	0.123
resilisnce	1st	21	16.86 ± 4.74		22	17.05 ± 4.74		0.897	-0.177
resilisnce	2nd	7	17.24 ± 2.99	-0.363	4	14.98 ± 2.43	1.938	0.180	2.124
social_provision	1st	21	13.43 ± 3.34		22	13.91 ± 3.34		0.639	-0.377
social_provision	2nd	7	13.10 ± 2.41	0.257	4	14.68 ± 2.14	-0.603	0.270	-1.238
els_value_living	1st	21	16.86 ± 3.04		22	17.41 ± 3.04		0.555	-0.428
els_value_living	2nd	7	18.19 ± 2.28	-1.037	4	17.15 ± 2.07	0.200	0.444	0.809
els_life_fulfill	1st	21	12.19 ± 3.25		22	13.91 ± 3.25		0.091	-1.346
els_life_fulfill	2nd	7	13.57 ± 2.37	-1.079	4	13.73 ± 2.12	0.140	0.907	-0.128
els	1st	21	29.05 ± 5.68		22	31.32 ± 5.68		0.197	-1.018
els	2nd	7	31.76 ± 4.14	-1.214	4	30.85 ± 3.70	0.211	0.710	0.407
social_connect	1st	21	27.05 ± 10.27		22	26.64 ± 10.27		0.896	0.138
social_connect	2nd	7	28.79 ± 6.84	-0.582	4	31.07 ± 5.79	-1.484	0.559	-0.764
shs_agency	1st	21	13.71 ± 4.88		22	14.64 ± 4.88		0.539	-0.551
shs_agency	2nd	7	15.02 ± 3.40	-0.778	4	14.14 ± 2.96	0.299	0.656	0.527
shs_pathway	1st	21	16.19 ± 3.67		22	17.18 ± 3.67		0.381	-0.738
shs_pathway	2nd	7	16.95 ± 2.61	-0.563	4	17.06 ± 2.30	0.092	0.942	-0.083
shs	1st	21	29.90 ± 7.94		22	31.82 ± 7.94		0.434	-0.814
shs	2nd	7	31.82 ± 5.31	-0.816	4	31.00 ± 4.51	0.348	0.787	0.350
esteem	1st	21	12.67 ± 1.22		22	12.32 ± 1.22		0.353	0.326
esteem	2nd	7	13.56 ± 1.27	-0.836	4	12.32 ± 1.29	-0.005	0.131	1.157
mlq_search	1st	21	15.19 ± 3.46		22	15.23 ± 3.46		0.972	-0.013
mlq_search	2nd	7	15.95 ± 3.57	-0.260	4	13.99 ± 3.59	0.425	0.387	0.673
mlq_presence	1st	21	14.14 ± 4.09		22	13.23 ± 4.09		0.467	0.830
mlq_presence	2nd	7	14.81 ± 2.68	-0.603	4	11.32 ± 2.24	1.729	0.025	3.162
mlq	1st	21	29.33 ± 7.02		22	28.45 ± 7.02		0.684	0.258
mlq	2nd	7	30.65 ± 5.57	-0.387	4	24.67 ± 5.18	1.111	0.084	1.755
empower	1st	21	20.10 ± 4.36		22	19.82 ± 4.36		0.836	0.251
empower	2nd	7	20.50 ± 2.82	-0.369	4	18.94 ± 2.33	0.794	0.328	1.414
ismi_resistance	1st	21	14.95 ± 2.67		22	14.91 ± 2.67		0.958	0.025
ismi_resistance	2nd	7	14.82 ± 2.43	0.075	4	15.25 ± 2.37	-0.198	0.777	-0.248
ismi_discrimation	1st	21	12.00 ± 3.08		22	10.41 ± 3.08		0.098	1.084
ismi_discrimation	2nd	7	11.14 ± 2.43	0.584	4	10.23 ± 2.25	0.124	0.532	0.624
sss_affective	1st	21	9.95 ± 4.24		22	9.05 ± 4.24		0.487	0.738
sss_affective	2nd	7	9.62 ± 2.82	0.267	4	8.37 ± 2.39	0.548	0.438	1.018
sss_behavior	1st	21	10.19 ± 4.37		22	8.82 ± 4.37		0.309	0.740
sss_behavior	2nd	7	8.87 ± 3.28	0.714	4	8.54 ± 2.97	0.150	0.866	0.177
sss_cognitive	1st	21	7.48 ± 4.11		22	8.05 ± 4.11		0.652	-0.358
sss_cognitive	2nd	7	8.71 ± 2.98	-0.776	4	7.05 ± 2.66	0.625	0.347	1.043
sss	1st	21	27.62 ± 11.92		22	25.91 ± 11.92		0.641	0.507
sss	2nd	7	27.08 ± 7.89	0.159	4	24.65 ± 6.64	0.375	0.588	0.723

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(49.95) = 0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.85)

2st

t(49.53) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.77 to 1.48)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(42.72) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.59)

2st

t(31.94) = 0.32, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.79)

ras_confidence

1st

t(41.81) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.81)

2st

t(42.78) = 0.59, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-2.57 to 4.67)

ras_willingness

1st

t(43.96) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.29)

2st

t(27.77) = 0.55, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.68)

ras_goal

1st

t(42.60) = 0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.13)

2st

t(32.79) = -0.71, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.80)

ras_reliance

1st

t(41.63) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.31)

2st

t(46.11) = 0.83, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -1.16, 95% CI (-1.35 to 3.22)

ras_domination

1st

t(49.14) = -2.23, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-2.94 to -0.15)

2st

t(42.43) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.90 to 4.16)

symptom

1st

t(42.19) = 0.51, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-4.73 to 7.93)

2st

t(36.85) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-5.88 to 11.08)

slof_work

1st

t(41.48) = -0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.96 to 2.20)

2st

t(48.72) = 0.24, p = 0.811, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-3.11 to 3.95)

slof_relationship

1st

t(42.31) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.77 to 2.32)

2st

t(35.46) = 0.63, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-3.36 to 6.36)

satisfaction

1st

t(41.73) = 1.28, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -1.39, 95% CI (-1.55 to 6.93)

2st

t(44.16) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-3.96 to 6.40)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.58) = 0.82, p = 0.416, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.96)

2st

t(30.48) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-3.78 to 4.57)

mhc_social

1st

t(45.40) = -0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.72 to 2.70)

2st

t(28.11) = -1.30, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-9.80 to 2.19)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(46.42) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.39 to 5.16)

2st

t(30.08) = -0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-7.97 to 6.90)

resilisnce

1st

t(41.47) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.73 to 3.11)

2st

t(48.85) = -1.36, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 2.12, 95% CI (-5.60 to 1.08)

social_provision

1st

t(42.41) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.53)

2st

t(34.49) = 1.12, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.43)

els_value_living

1st

t(42.76) = 0.60, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.42)

2st

t(31.62) = -0.78, p = 0.444, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.70)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(42.49) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.35, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)

2st

t(33.70) = 0.12, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.66 to 2.99)

els

1st

t(42.49) = 1.31, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-1.22 to 5.76)

2st

t(33.66) = -0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.83 to 4.02)

social_connect

1st

t(41.79) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-6.74 to 5.91)

2st

t(43.06) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-5.54 to 10.11)

shs_agency

1st

t(42.12) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.08 to 3.93)

2st

t(37.78) = -0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.86 to 3.09)

shs_pathway

1st

t(42.28) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.25)

2st

t(35.78) = 0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.97 to 3.19)

shs

1st

t(41.82) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-2.97 to 6.80)

2st

t(42.53) = -0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-6.91 to 5.27)

esteem

1st

t(49.09) = -0.94, p = 0.353, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.40)

2st

t(42.10) = -1.54, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-2.86 to 0.39)

mlq_search

1st

t(48.61) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.16)

2st

t(38.95) = -0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-6.50 to 2.58)

mlq_presence

1st

t(41.68) = -0.73, p = 0.467, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.60)

2st

t(45.20) = -2.31, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 3.16, 95% CI (-6.52 to -0.45)

mlq

1st

t(43.36) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.20 to 3.44)

2st

t(28.95) = -1.79, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 1.76, 95% CI (-12.81 to 0.85)

empower

1st

t(41.59) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.41)

2st

t(46.77) = -0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-4.74 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(45.49) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.59)

2st

t(28.24) = 0.29, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.50)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(43.26) = -1.69, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.31)

2st

t(29.25) = -0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-3.88 to 2.05)

sss_affective

1st

t(41.79) = -0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-3.52 to 1.71)

2st

t(43.17) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-4.48 to 1.98)

sss_behavior

1st

t(42.77) = -1.03, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.06 to 1.31)

2st

t(31.62) = -0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-4.27 to 3.61)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(42.45) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.10)

2st

t(34.06) = -0.95, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-5.20 to 1.88)

sss

1st

t(41.75) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-9.05 to 5.63)

2st

t(43.90) = -0.55, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-11.43 to 6.56)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(36.51) = 0.70, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(10.59) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.02)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(9.70) = 0.79, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.95)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.04) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.77)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(10.47) = -1.19, p = 0.523, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.01 to 0.91)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(9.54) = 1.19, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.95)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(26.47) = 1.25, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.14)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(10.06) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.86 to 5.44)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(9.40) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.26)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(10.18) = 0.85, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-2.04 to 4.57)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(9.63) = 0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.97)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(16.58) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-2.76 to 4.13)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(14.21) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.74 to 3.97)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(16.24) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-5.97 to 6.28)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(9.39) = -2.75, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 1.94, 95% CI (-3.75 to -0.38)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(10.27) = 0.87, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.74)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(10.64) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.24 to 1.72)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(10.36) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.79)

els

1st vs 2st

t(10.36) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.91 to 2.97)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(9.69) = 2.12, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-0.26 to 9.12)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(9.99) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.11 to 2.11)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(10.15) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.21 to 1.96)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(9.71) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.50 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(26.17) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.38)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(23.40) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.08 to 2.60)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(9.58) = -2.46, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 1.73, 95% CI (-3.64 to -0.17)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(11.30) = -1.61, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-8.94 to 1.37)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(9.51) = -1.13, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.87)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(14.38) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.15 to 2.84)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(11.19) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.41 to 2.04)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(9.68) = -0.78, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(10.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.57)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(10.32) = -0.90, p = 0.781, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.47)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(9.65) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-6.56 to 4.03)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(27.38) = 1.39, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(10.26) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.17)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(9.56) = 0.84, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.27)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(11.37) = -0.71, p = 0.984, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.85)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(10.17) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.61)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(9.44) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.10)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(20.99) = -1.14, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.92)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(9.85) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.51 to 3.08)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(9.33) = -3.04, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-3.20 to -0.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(9.94) = -1.30, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.97 to 1.05)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(9.51) = 2.35, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.71)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(14.60) = 0.92, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.52 to 3.81)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(12.95) = 1.39, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.33 to 6.15)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(14.36) = 0.94, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.66 to 6.81)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(9.32) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.66)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(10.02) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.17)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(10.30) = 1.97, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.84)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(10.08) = 2.04, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.88)

els

1st vs 2st

t(10.08) = 2.30, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.33)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(9.55) = 1.10, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.82 to 5.30)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(9.80) = 1.47, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.68 to 3.28)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(9.92) = 1.06, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.34)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(9.57) = 1.54, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.71)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(20.79) = 1.72, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.98)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(19.05) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.24 to 3.76)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(9.47) = 1.13, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.98)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(10.81) = 0.74, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-2.62 to 5.25)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(9.41) = 0.69, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.73)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(13.06) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.05 to 1.79)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(10.73) = -1.11, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.56 to 0.84)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(9.55) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.14)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(10.30) = -1.35, p = 0.409, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.84)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(10.05) = 1.47, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.11)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(9.52) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-4.55 to 3.48)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance